If chillingly arrogant Blair and Major get their way, it would be the death of democracy

TRADITIONALLY, Prime Ministers take a back seat after leaving No 10, making public appearances only on official occasions and very rarely interfering in day-to-day politics. of course, there have been exceptions. For example, Harold Macmillan condemned Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation programme, which he said was the equivalent of ‘selling the family silver’.

In turn, Mrs T herself was accused by her successor John Major after she claimed she was a ‘very good back-seat driver’ and he said witheringly: ‘I think her behaviour was intolerable.’

A most egregious exception, too, is Tony blair. Ever since standing down as Prime Minister in 2007, he has delusionally continued to conduct himself as if he were a world statesman.

Now, having failed in his role as Middle East peace envoy — but having built up a multi-million-pound personal fortune — he is plotting a political comeback in britain.

This week, he grandly offered himself for interview with the Left-wing magazine the New Statesman in which he gives a wideranging assessment of world events.

Wisely, considering how very low his reputation is with the public after having taken the uK into an illegal war in Iraq and amassed himself millions — blair says he has ‘no intention of going back to the frontline’ of british politics.

However, the man who a former friend once called a ‘narcissist with a Messiah complex’, is convinced he can offer a voice to millions who disagree with brexit and who he describes as ‘politically homeless.’

An arch Europhile who, as PM, desperately wanted britain to join the euro and who, after leaving Downing Street, toyed with the idea of trying to become president of the Eu, arrogantly makes it clear that his most urgent task is to keep britain in the Eu.

In defiance of the democratic will of the british people who voted in June to leave the Eu, he told New Statesman editor Jason Cowley that brexit can be prevented.

WITH breathtaking conceit, he says: ‘It can be stopped if the british people decide that, having seen what it means, the pain-gain cost-benefit analysis doesn’t stack up.’ on its own, blair joining the chorus of disgruntled and out-of-touch Remainers demanding a second referendum is a story of minor significance, particularly considering his unpopularity on both the Left and Right.

Quite rightly he was utterly discredited by the Chilcot Report into the Iraq war, which not only exposed his dishonesty in presenting the case for intervention but also laid bare his incompetence and the way in which he presided over the collapse of good government.

Chilcot showed how he suborned senior public servants such as the head of MI6 (although many were shamefully too willing to be bought off), ignored sane advice, failed to ensure proper planning and provision for the war and aftermath and set impossible tasks for our Armed Forces and civilians in Iraq.

If blair had been judged against the standards set for other occupations with a duty of care — for example, surgeons or civil engineers — he might now be facing trial for manslaughter, for causing death by gross negligence.

I am not alone in believing that following Chilcot’s damning condemnation, blair’s opinions cannot be trusted. Although I said his decision to return to frontline politics to try to stop britain leaving the Eu is a move of minor significance, he has joined a bandwagon of very powerful vested interests which is determined to prevent the will of the british people being carried out.

Last Wednesday night, at Leftwing luvvies’ favourite London restaurant the River Cafe — run by the wife of Labour peer and anti-brexit campaigner Richard Rogers — blair’s former propaganda chief Alastair Campbell is said to have lobbied fellow diners such as Lord (Peter) Mandelson and ex-MI6 boss John Sawers, to ‘fight back’ on brexit.

And what a coincidence that blair’s predecessor as PM, John Major, has also entered the fray, joining the battle to stop britain leaving the Eu. How ironic that the man who said Mrs T had behaved ‘intolerably’ by acting as a back- seat driver to him is now meddling and trying to sabotage the most important challenge facing the present prime minister, Theresa May.

To be fair to Major, he has always conducted himself with far greater dignity and discretion than blair.

However, speaking at a private dinner at Westminster, he argued that there was a ‘perfectly credible case’ for a second referendum on the terms of brexit once they are finally known.

He made some worthwhile points — for example his insistence that it is essential that Parliament should have its say on the terms of the deal negotiated with the Eu.

However, his assertion that brexit should not be dictated by what he called the ‘tyranny of the majority’ was a grotesque insult to the 17.4 million people who voted Leave.

The phrase ‘tyranny of the majority’ was first used by John Adams, one of the founding fathers of the united States, in 1788. It should be understood in its proper context. Adams was expressing concern about the dangers of mob rule, and the fear that majority opinion could be used to trample over or even terrorise minority groups.

There is wisdom in Adams’s phrase — underscoring how it is possible for democracies to be transformed into something horrible like a dictatorship. over the years, many despots have come to power thanks to the ‘tyranny of the majority’.

HOWEVER, Major’s deliberate use of such a phrase in the context of brexit is both toxic and reckless. on June 23, a clear majority of voters decisively cast their vote on an issue concerning the destiny of britain after a great public debate.

Which is why I fear that Major’s comment risks taking us into very dangerous territory.

Not only is it an insult to our democratic process, it betrays an arrogant assumption that the result of the June vote can be changed.

Don’t think that this is impossible. For in the past decade, the brussels elite has successfully challenged the democratic will of the people on three occasions — in Ireland twice and Denmark.

In referendums, voters there initially rejected an Eu treaty, only to be asked to vote again because brussels was appalled by their verdict. Eventually the Eurocrats got the results they wanted.

Disgracefully, it now looks as if there is a similar plot being hatched for britain to follow a similar path.

This would be an abrogation of democracy. The british people have decided they want out of the Eu.

The June 23 vote was not only a judgment on britain’s membership of a corrupt and bankrupt European super-state, but a voice of protest against a ruling class that has betrayed the people on a host of issues such as uncontrolled immigration, the incompetence of financial institutions which led to the crash of 2008 and the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs and the consequent decline and impoverishment of communities they supported.

For many years, Tony blair was a figurehead for this ruling elite.

His desire now to sabotage the public will and prevent brexit shows that he has learned nothing from a career in politics.

If he and John Major succeed, there will be no talk of the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Instead, it would be the ‘ tyranny of the arrogant minority’. And, most chillingly, we would be witnessing the death of democracy.